Elements of directed autonomy were visible in public education long before the concept had been defined in the scholarly literature on organizational management. Most notably, states established common curricula and adequacy standards and then held local school boards accountable for compliance. Civic engagement, a liberty-based process through which citizens exercise authority and power, was integral to this political arrangement (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004). After 1900, however, citizen involvement in public education began waning, largely because of an intricate mix of progressive reforms and professionalism that disconnected schools from their communities (Callahan, 1962; Kochan & Reed, 2005; Reese, 2001). This trend has become a major concern of political scientists, sociologists, and educational researchers who view the disengagement of the public from institutions such as public education as a major threat to the institution's legitimacy and survival (Cibulka, 1996; McGinn, 1996; McNeil, 2002; Putnam, 1995). McNeil goes so far as to argue, "there has perhaps been no time in our history when the links between public education and democracy have been as tenuous as they are right now" (2002, p. 243). This article focuses on efforts to reconnect the public and promote civic engagement in education by distributing leadership throughout the educational system utilizing the process of deliberative democracy. Applications of distributive leadership and deliberative democracy are examined in relation to two critical components: leadership behavior and conflict management.